Mount Hope crowd questions fire district payment

MOUNT HOPE — An otherwise sedate Town Board meeting erupted into intense debate Monday night as the public demanded answers about an apparent $49,000 overpayment to the Mount Hope Fire District.

Gittel Evangelist

MOUNT HOPE — An otherwise sedate Town Board meeting erupted into intense debate Monday night as the public demanded answers about an apparent $49,000 overpayment to the Mount Hope Fire District.

The fire district has been a contentious issue in the town since it was approved last year. At the heart of the dispute seems to be an ongoing feud between the Town of Mount Hope and the Village of Otisville, which previously contracted for fire protection services.

The board made a $275,000 initial payment to the new district and a $16,846 workers' compensation payment, both on May 23, 2013, then paid an additional $49,000 on Sept. 26. On Dec. 30, in the final act of the outgoing Town Board, council members approved another $22,003 workers' comp payment — for a total of $362,849.

However, in its original contract with the fire district, the town agreed to pay just $312,924, leaving the Sept. 26 payment of $49,000 in dispute. Included in the $49,000 is an unreimbursed $38,849 for workers' comp and an unaccounted for $11,076 overpayment, contends Supervisor Chad Volpe.

Members of the public at Monday's meeting questioned board members Janet Sutherland and Gary Ketcham — both of whom served on the previous Town Board and approved the now-contested bills — on whether those payments were made during the course of a public meeting or in private. Sutherland said she could not immediately recall the answer.

"So you guys just go behind closed doors and spend money?" asked an incredulous Kathy Coppola, a Village of Otisville resident.

Without specifically addressing the total $49,000 overpayment, Sutherland said the extra $11,076 was designated for fire protection and had to stay in that account. Asked if the board were under orders from the state auditor, she replied, "We were told to keep the money for fire protection."

Sutherland became visibly flustered by the public's peppering questions, as people talked over each other, cutting her off repeatedly.

"When you are ready to hear the answer, then I will explain," she said. "Instead, you want to come down my throat."

The meeting was adjourned with no clear resolution.

The town billed the fire district for the $49,000 in January, which has not yet been paid. Members of the fire district and Volpe have played a seemingly endless game of putting off meeting in person to discuss the issue.

"By law, certain accounts are supposed to zero out every year, including the account for fire protection," Volpe said. "What clearly should have happened is that if there was a surplus in that account for the previous year, that money should have been returned to the taxpayers this year; then that account would have zeroed out for 2014."

A petition is currently circulating in town, seeking to dissolve the fire district.